The Chilcot report , the UK government’s official report on the catastrophic decision to invade Iraq, was released on Wednesday morning, seven years after it was initially convened. The report delivers a pretty devastating verdict on the war, concluding that Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the West and war was avoidable.
But from an American point of view, the most striking part of the report is how foreseeable the disaster that unfolded after the invasion was.
When you read the British government’s intelligence assessments, they predict, plus or minus a few details, exactly what happened after the war. The UK had ample warning that Iraq would collapse after the invasion and make the problem of terrorism worse — but it went to war anyway.
Why? Basically, the report suggests, because the US decided to. Then-UK Prime Minister Tony Blair decided that the UK couldn’t afford the hit to the US-UK relationship that would come from seriously challenging the Bush administration’s rush to war, so he decided to back America to the hilt.
While the UK government made a huge number of mistakes before the war, the takeaway from Chilcot is clear: It’s America’s fault. The disaster in Iraq was not just foreseeable but, in the case of the UK, actually foreseen. The United States just went ahead with the war anyway. Though Britain screwed up, this is truly America’s shame.
UK intelligence predicted Iraq’s collapse
In March 2002, a year before the invasion, the UK took a hard look at the potential consequences of an invasion. Its military intelligence organization, called the Defence Intelligence Service (DIS), released an internal report on the likely consequences of a US-UK invasion. Its contents were remarkably prescient.
It predicted that sectarian tensions, as well as the legacy of authoritarian rule, would pose a serious threat to post-invasion stability.
"Sunni hegemony, the position of the Kurds and Shia, enmity with Kuwait, infighting among the elite, autocratic rule and anti-Israeli sentiment will not disappear with Saddam," the DIS report explains. "We should also expect considerable anti-Western sentiment among a populace that has experienced ten years of sanctions."
Fixing these problems, the DIS argued, would require an extraordinary and lengthy commitment of American resources.
"Modern Iraq has been dominated politically, militarily and socially by the Sunni. To alter that would entail re-creation of Iraq’s civil, political and military structures," they write. "That would require a US-directed transition of power (ie US troops occupying Baghdad) and support thereafter. Ten years seems a not unrealistic time span for such a project."
These were not hard predictions to make. DIS’s predictions stemmed from simply taking a hard look at the basic structure of Iraqi society — a majority Shia country that had long been controlled by a Sunni sectarian dictatorship. Indeed, the Chilcot report finds that it was hardly alone in warning of pitfalls in the post-invasion world.
"The information available to the Government before the invasion provided a clear indication of the potential scale of the post‑conflict task and the significant risks associated with the UK’s proposed approach," the report summarizes. "Foreseeable risks included post‑conflict political disintegration and extremist violence in Iraq, the inadequacy of US plans, [and] the UK’s inability to exert significant influence on US planning."
The United States, too, knew of the war’s risks. According to Chilcot’s findings, "the State Department judged that rebuilding Iraq would require ‘a US commitment of enormous scope’ over several years."
Yet the United States failed to plan for postwar sectarian infighting and had no serious plan for rebuilding Iraqi institutions after the invasion.
This, Chilcot judges, owed principally to Donald Rumsfeld’s Department of Defense. "Many in the DoD anticipated US forces being greeted as liberators who would be able leave Iraq within months, with no need for the US to administer the functions of Iraq’s government after major combat operations," Chilcot concludes.
Perhaps the most damning testimony in the report on this point comes from Sir David Manning, a foreign policy advisor to Tony Blair in the runup to the war. Here’s what Manning told Chilcot:
"It’s quite clear throughout 2002, and indeed throughout 2003, that it is the Pentagon, it’s the military, who are running this thing...Bush had this vision of a new Middle East. You know, we are going to change Iraq, we are going to change Palestine, and it’s all going to be a new Middle East.
But there were…big flaws in this argument. One is they won’t do nation-building. They think this is a principle. So if you go into Iraq, how are you going to achieve this new Iraq? And the military certainly don’t think it’s their job."
In short? The United States had ample warning that reconstructing Iraq would be a difficult and dangerous task, as did its key ally. Yet the key war planners assumed the war would be a cakewalk . Iraqis and coalition soldiers paid the price.
"Bush’s poodle"
The more you read the report, the more this sort of American ignorance and bullheadedness seems like a pattern, not an aberration. Time after time, the United States charged ahead with terrible ideas, often dragging the UK along for the ride.
This story starts in 2001. According to Chilcot, the US government became dead set on invading Iraq shortly after the 9/11 attacks — despite no meaningful links between al-Qaeda and Iraq.
"It was the US Administration which decided in late 2001 to make dealing with the problem of Saddam Hussein’s regime the second priority, after the ousting of the Taliban in Afghanistan, in the ‘Global War on Terror,’" Chilcot finds. "In that period, the US Administration turned against a strategy of continued containment of Iraq, which it was pursuing before the 9/11 attacks."
The UK, interestingly, did not initially agree. "Its stated view at that time was that containment had been broadly effective, and that it could be adapted in order to remain sustainable. Containment continued to be the declared policy of the UK throughout the first half of 2002," it explains.
Blair, personally, was somewhat skeptical of the case for war. "I still don’t see how the military option will work, but I guess there will be an answer," he said in February 2002.
Yet two months later, Blair essentially committed the UK to supporting a US invasion of Iraq during a private meeting with President Bush at the latter’s ranch in Crawford, Texas. Not only did Blair give in, Chilcot explains, but he gave up on the UK’s preferred policy of waiting to see if United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors could do their job. The UN skeptics at the US ended up setting the terms of the war.
"Most crucially, the US Administration committed itself to a timetable for military action which did not align with, and eventually overrode, the timetable and processes for inspections in Iraq which had been set by the UN Security Council," Chilcot finds.
"The UK wanted [the UN] and the IAEA to have time to complete their work, and wanted the support of the Security Council, and of the international community more widely, before any further steps were taken. This option was foreclosed by the US decision."
This, according to Chilcot, was part of a broader pattern of UK deference to the US. "On these and other important points, including the planning for the post-conflict period and the functioning of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), the UK Government decided that it was right or necessary to defer to its close ally and senior partner, the US," Chilcot concludes.
That includes on decisions that would prove to be disastrous. Disbanding the Iraqi army after the invasion, for example, immediately rendered a huge number of military-trained young men unemployed, many of whom ended up joining extremist and insurgent groups. It was a critical cause of the postwar disaster — yet L. Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), basically told the UK that this would be how things were after the decision was made.
The UK, according to Chilcot, "played little or no formal part" in the decision to disband Iraq’s army.
Blair prioritized the special relationship
Why did the UK defer to the American view, on both the war and its execution? The basic conclusion of Chilcot is very clear: The UK leadership thought that standing up to America would threaten their partnership. This probably wasn’t true — the US and France get along fine nowadays. But the UK leadership thought it was , and that made all the difference.
A crucial passage from Tony Blair’s memoirs, highlighted by the report, sheds light on this mindset:
I agreed with the basic US analysis of Saddam as a threat; I thought he was a monster; and to break the US partnership in such circumstances, when America’s key allies were all rallying round, would in my view, then (and now) have done major long-term damage to that relationship.
As the more powerful partner, by far, in the "special relationship," the US got to set the terms of how things worked. Blair, an interventionist by inclination anyway, was mostly content to go along — despite the warnings in the UK government that the war would be a mess. The popular nickname for Blair after the invasion, "Bush’s poodle," was more than a little earned.
"Mr Blair and President Bush continued to discuss Iraq on a regular basis. It continued to be the case that relatively small issues were raised to this level," the Chilcot report writes, a statement made all more the damning by its reserved tone. "The UK took false comfort that it was involved in US decision‑making from the strength of that relationship."
This, I think, is the ultimate lesson of Chilcot for America. The United States faces many constraints in global politics, but it is ultimately still the world’s only superpower and the driving force behind the trans-Atlantic alliance. When the US makes a bad decision, even a historically terrible one, it has the capability to drag at least some of its chief allies with it.
This responsibility cannot be evaded by pointing to the mistakes of those allies, legion as they may be. The Iraq War was principally an American project, conceived of and designed in Washington. The invasion’s failures were predictable and predicted, yet the Bush administration chose to launch it anyway.
This was a decision America made. This latest report merely underscores just how terrible a decision it truly was.
( Menendj )
Sorry that the images didn't come through. They're in the original article if you want to see them... but they are not really necessary.
Chilcot is yet more proof that America waged a decade-long war, and drove the ME into a chaos that has predictably proved fertile for terrorism... because... George W Bush wanted that war. There was no security motive... only Mr Bush's desire.
This article is so spot on. I remember having this discussion with my English uncle who supported the war. In fact, I would take it back to the Afghan war and our interference there. But when it comes to the fall of the M/E as we have it today, that goes back to us taking down Iraq.
btw... I fixed the photo issue.
. But when it comes to the fall of the M/E as we have it today, that goes back to us taking down Iraq.
Partly.
But the area was not exactly a peaceful place before that. (True, that war made it much, much worse). A large part of the blame can also be put on how the colonial powers divided up the area.
Thanks for the fix.
It's interesting that even the Brits are publicly and officially recognizing -- to their own national shame -- that the war was pointless, or worse... while so many Americans still proclaiming that it was a Good Thing.
I read about this yesterday, and it sure was on the mark.
Remember that God told Bush to invade. I wonder if God also told him that thousands of American servicemen would die, with thousands more disabled. I wonder if God told him that those returning vets would be screwed over by the government. I wonder if God told him that 10 plus years later we would still be in the ME. I wonder if God told him that we would spend trillions of dollars for naught. Inquiring minds want to know.
I remember Ron Paul saying no don't do it and almost everyone else including Hillary and Colin Powell saying we need to do this. As crazy as it might sound today many people would like to see those same warmongers elected President.
Ron Paul wasn't the only one, Dean. 23 Senators and over 100 house members voted against it as well.
I remember Ron Paul saying no don't do it and almost everyone else including Hillary and Colin Powell saying we need to do this
If Ron Paul had been in office when Pearl Harbour was attacked and most Americans said we had to fight japan-- I'm sure Ron Paul would've said No don't do it.
I don't believe Colin Powell WANTED to do it. I believe he was being loyal to his Commander-in-Chief, but the "just following orders" excuse has been established as no excuse. If he had been more loyal to his country rather than to his chief he should have resigned. Such a resignation would have damned Bush right then and there. However, it would have made Powell an ideal candidate for POTUS. I still think he would be a much better POTUS than the present candidates.
You know Kaivkia, when ever you want Americans on your side, you evoke god's name, and they all fall in line... that is until the body bags start coming home.
Right now Europe is paying for our mutual mistake. Ironically, both us and the Brits, don't have to let in the Syrians, unlike the rest of the EU. And now that the Brits have ditched the EU, they will only have to deal with their own homegrowns like us. But ISIS only needs on hit for every 1000 tries to be effective. That is the beauty of terrorism, and we created it. Lovely/sarc.
I'm a little bit schizophrenic on this. The whole WORLD, other than the US and lap-dog Blair, knew that there was no urgency to invade Iraq. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin warned, in his pre-invasion speech at the UN, that the most likely result of an American invasion of Iraq would be chaos throughout the Middle East.
So... Any courageous American leaders actually did have plenty of sources to tell them how bad Mr Bush's idea was. But the problem was not just "courage". Such leaders ran a great risk of being labeled "traitors" by jingoist politicians and "journalists". I am fairly confident that Hillary knew that the WMD story was BS, but preferred to let Mr Bush hang himself in the court of history. That's a sin. But it is microscopic compared to Mr Bush's... the Republican establishment's... crimes against the public that trusted them.
I am fairly confident that Hillary knew that the WMD story was BS, but preferred to let Mr Bush hang himself in the court of history. That's a sin.
We don't know what our reps really knew, and maybe they felt the French didn't have all the facts. On the other hand, if they did know the truth, then it's a really big faux pas and really beyond a sin, but complicit.
"Complicit" is a very strong word. An accomplice has the same guilt as the active party. It seems to me to be a HUGE stretch to put Hillary at the same degree of guilt as George.
"Complicit" is a very strong word. An accomplice has the same guilt as the active party. It seems to me to be a HUGE stretch to put Hillary at the same degree of guilt as George.
Nowhere did I blame Hillary. I said our representatives, and obviously they were working off of the intel they were getting from the government (that would be the administration and Bush/Cheney. But both the House and the Senate did give the go ahead, so they are complicit to the degree that they didn't ask the right questions.
We don't know what our reps really knew, and maybe they felt the French didn't have all the facts. On the other hand, if they did know the truth, then it's a really big faux pas and really beyond a sin, but complicit.
They were lied to. And those constructing the lies did a great job of conning people-- even a lot of top Democrats. below a fascinating video* of several top Democrats claiming Saddam had WMDs and were a real danger. Listening carefully, it's obvious they really believed it.
However, they were lied to-- so how could they know? They were deliberately fed false information from the gov't.
________________________________________________________________
*Be forewarned-- this video was produced by the the Republicans. However, apparently all the clips they included are real. The Democrats were deceived by the Bush administration!
Bill was telling the lies before the Bush administration existed.
Yeah he did, but he didn't invade with boots on the ground for years. That is the big difference.
I am fairly confident that Hillary knew that the WMD story was BS, but preferred to let Mr Bush hang himself in the court of history.
I really don't know either way.
But how could she know if the government consistently lied about it? What other source of information could she have had?
Saddam did have-- and used!-- WMDs at one time. There were horrendous poison gas attacks on Kurdish civilians at Halabja. And after Saddam started that huge war with Iran (one of two wars he started, BTW) Iraq did use poison gas on the Iranians. (And of course he was building a nuclear reactor...which Iran tried to take out...)
I'm not sure what happened to his WMDs, but sometime between those attacks just mentioned & the American invasion, he did away with them-- either destroyed them , buried them in the desert, or gave them away. (At the beginning of the war, I remember reading that U.S. troops spent a lot of time and effort looking for WMDs in Iraq-- it seems they were sure they' find them hidden somewhere. (But of course they didn't-- because at least at that time they didn't exist..in Iraq).
But how could she know if the government consistently lied about it
Her husband was President until 2001. He constantly claimed Iraq had WMDs. There was no bipartisan conspiracy to falsely claim Iraq had WMDs. Everyone thought he did. They were apparently wrong.
From Wiki:
After the Persian Gulf War , the United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi chemical weapons and related equipment and materials throughout the early 1990s, with varying degrees of Iraqi cooperation and obstruction. [2] In response to diminishing Iraqi cooperation with UNSCOM , the United States called for withdrawal of all UN and IAEA inspectors in 1998, resulting in Operation Desert Fox .
This was based on intelligence from the first Desert War. Both the UN and the US were in agreement. Desert Fox was started and there were no boots on the ground. That is a huge difference than what Bush did.
Yes. But Bill Clinton was still claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the inspectors left. There's no way to implicate Bush as a liar without saying the same about Clinton.
It's been 15 years with not even the slightest bit of proof arising that anyone lied. Yet it keeps getting brought up. Sad, especially when paired with the logically impossible and historically inaccurate that only Bush and the Republicans were pushing the Iraq has WMDS narrative.
Sean,
I think you are kind of confused. They left twice. Right before Desert Fox, under Clinton, but the lack of WMD's had not been concluded and right after they concluded that there were no WMD's under Bush.
Here is the timeline:
am fairly confident that Hillary knew that the WMD story was BS, but preferred to let Mr Bush hang himself in the court of histor
Then she's worst than Bush. She's the worst American, ever.
There's zero evidence that Bush or anyone in the administration knew Saddam didn't have WMD. If she somehow found that out independently of everyone else, including her husband, and pushed for wart under pretenses she knew were false, she's beyond evil. even I don't think that little of her.
Bang the drum and invoke God and we march off to war.
''Johnny Got His Gun''.
That is the beauty of terrorism, and we created it.
Do you really believe terrorism "was created" only after the Iraq war?
Remember that God told Bush to invade. I
No. He didn't and Bush never claimed he did.
You don't need me to debunk that, it's ridiculous on its face.
Debunk it Sean, does it make a difference if God told him to, or the devil or he thought it up in his own mind.
It was a huge fricking mistake.
It wasn't Clinton that invaded Iraq, it was Bush.
If he was worried about WMD's, if should of invaded North Korea, there was no doubt that they had them.
i agree it was a mistake. It'd just be nice if it could be discussd without all the made up crap for once.
We agree on it was a mistake.
It would be nice if it could be discussed without crap, but that crap comes from both sides, Sean.
I'm pretty sick and tired of hearing the invasion being defended as a good thing. It wasn't, never was and never will be.
Every time I hear Rumsfeld's comment, ''you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had''....in response to a question from a trooper in Iraq you asked why after two years are we still digging through junk yards to up armor our vehicles?
It was the administration that chose the date of the war and their decision to invade. You better have the army you wish if your going to start a war and but American lives at risk.
That story stinks to say the least . Why would Bush say anything that controversial to Palestinians ?
it's like a known white supremacist claiming Barack Obama personally told him he wanted to start a race war.
That's the same ridiculous source.
Kavika's is from the BBC and the other is the The Guardian, one of England's biggest paper.
look who is being quoted as the source of this supposed revelation.
Do you automatically believe what ever Fatah politicians say? Might he have had another agenda?
Isn't that for the people who are writing the story to determine?
So you agree that Israel wants to expel all non Jews from "occupied Palestine?" After all, that's what Nabil Sheeth says Israel wants to do and since the quote is in a newspaper it must be true.
I don't know. I don't think so. But that was then and this is now. But both of those outlets are not out there sources and upon looking it seems to be in most of the British outlets.
It's perposteous to believe that bush chose a Fatah minister, and only a Fatah minister to declare a religious war in Iraq. Who could possibly believe that other than deranged bush haters?
Nice try, Sean, but as I pointed out earlier, I voted for the guy for his second term. So you might want to dismiss the entire British Press, but I am not willing to.
this is not about the "entire British press", it's about the credibility of a single Fatah terrorist. Unless you believe that everything a terrorist says is true just because It's covered in the paper, your argument has no legs.
yes or no,do you believe that putting a quote in a paper means that the quote is true? If Abbas says Jews eat Christian babies and that quote is covered in all the English papers, would that mean Jews eat Christian babies? Or do you just accept blood libels made against Americans?
i could point out that the single person in the world who claimed bush made this statement retracted it later, but that's too easy. Let's pretend he didn't.
Unless you believe that everything a terrorist says is true just because It's covered in the paper, your argument has no legs.
And there is the flaw in your argument. A person can tell lies but also tell the truth. So while he might have told lies, it doesn't mean that everything he says is a lie.
But then there is this other tid bit:
B rubaker, in a follow-up column, said he checked with his source, an Amish reporter, who rechecked with attendees and had gotten different wording from several of them. "But Bush has said similar things on other occasions," Brubaker noted, citing B ob Woodward 's "Plan of Attack," where Bush says he's "surely not going to justify the war based on God . . . Nevertheless . . . I pray I be as good a messenger of his will as possible."
" 'Messenger of his will [or] God speaks through me,' " Brubaker wrote. "The difference seems rather fine."
The question is, how is it that Bush so confuses groups as diverse as the Palestinians and the Amish? Is it the Andover-Texas accent?
Which of course lead to this op ed:
Who knows better what George W. Bush said? George W. Bush or Mahmoud Abbas?
ABC1's Q&A on Monday:
SLAVOJ Zizek: You talk about the Muslim Brotherhood, let's talk about the Christian Brotherhood of the United States because I always tell my American friends we might have the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt but there is a Christian Brotherhood in the United States and . . . unlike [the] Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, it actually had an impact on foreign policy because George Bush apparently heard God tell him to invade Iraq and in the name of this . . .
Greg Sheridan: Where did George Bush ever say that? That's ridiculous.
Mona Eltahawy: You want me to get that for you from the news conference?
Sheridan: Yeah, you show me the quote.
Sorry, Mona, no news conference. Arnon Regular, Haaretz (Jerusalem), June 27, 2003:
MINUTES acquired by Haaretz from . . . cease-fire negotiations between Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and faction leaders from the Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular and Democratic Fronts reveal some of the factors at play behind the scenes in the effort to achieve a hudna [truce] . . . Abbas said that at Aqaba, [George W.] Bush promised to speak with [Ariel] Sharon about the siege on [Yasser] Arafat. He said nobody can speak to or pressure Sharon except the Americans. According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to strike at al-Qa'ida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."
Al Kamen, Washington Post, June 27, 2003:
THE Haaretz reporter, Arnon Regular, read what the paper said were minutes of the Palestinians' meeting to [Glen] Kessler [of The Washington Post] and another colleague, who is an Arabic speaker. The Arabic-speaking colleague's translation was this: "God inspired me to hit al-Qa'ida, and so I hit it. And I had the inspiration to hit Saddam, and so I hit him. Now I am determined to solve the Middle East problem if you help. Otherwise the elections will come and I will be wrapped up with them." Even then, there's uncertainty. After all, this is Abu Mazen's account in Arabic of what Bush said in English, written down . . .in Arabic, then back into English.
Ewen MacAskill, The Guardian, October 7, 2005:
NABIL Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God.' God would tell me: 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq.' And I did." Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me: 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.' And, by God, I'm gonna do it."
Yitzhak Benhorin, Ynet News, October 21, 2005:
ACCORDING to [PA information minister Nabil] Shaath, Bush said he was instructed by God to launch American invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq. American officials were outraged by Shaath's words, and Bush himself has denied the contents of the interview.
Reliable witness? Abbas in English, New York Times Magazine, January 27 this year:
I AM committed to peace, but not forever. I don't mean I will turn to violence never. In my life, I will never do it. But I cannot stay in my office forever doing nothing.
Abbas in Arabic in Al-Hayat Al-Jadida on January 24:
I HAVE said more than once that if the Arabs want war we are with them.
Right Pulse blog on October 3:
FEELING like some Monday night punishment so I have tuned into the ABC's . . . Q&A. Some real nutters on tonight. A Marxist that is making no sense and highly fidgety. Even Tony Jones is trying to shut him up.
So in fact, no one really knows what was said, if it got screwed up, or anything else, other than the great secret you might bestow on us. But apparently, there was enough out there to have it be a credible story.
Hi, Dean...
I realize the futility of speaking truth to a Denialist... but still... the US government's executive branch, led by the President, was stating very clearly and firmly that Iraq was a menace to the US.
Why are you blaming people for not knowing the President was lying to them? How is the war the fault of the "lied to"? How is it not the fault of the liar?
Dean,
You can't blame those senators for being for or against the war. They were operating on the information they were given. That isn't the same info that the Pres has. And while Ron Paul voted against the war, he didn't do it for the right reasons. He is an isolationist. You seem to forget that they were present with the "truth" of WMD's in Iraq, which we now know was a pile of BS. But if that is what you are being told, then that is what you will base your opinion on.
Good article Bob - thanks for posting.
The article was written by a guy who had his mind made up before he read "the entire Iraq war report" . He could have saved a lot of bytes and just say "IMO it was Bush's fault" !
What's truly fascinating here is the asymmetry of the arguments.
The article is a reading of a painfully thorough British government inquiry. Perrie presented a detailed timeline. That side stays on topic and uses facts.
Dean tries to change the subject. Sean produces facepalm-worthy unreality: "Then she's worst than Bush. She's the worst American, ever. There's zero evidence that Bush or anyone in the administration knew Saddam didn't have WMD." And Petey... probably didn't read the article... as usual...
This is typical, and not just on NT. Intelligent argument is met with garbage. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT!
Talk about changing the subject.
Do you have anything to say about the content of the article?
Bob
Your "religious" faith in a biased article from Vox is impressive . Do you have any evidence that the writer made any effort to weigh the info & make actual decisions of validity ? Or is snark all you've got ?!
Here's something I didn't see in this ANALysis : The decisions Bush made in how he conducted the war were critically important to how things turned out . But who cares about facts & details ? The important thing is to just damn the entire war upfront and pretend it was an unbiased article . It wasn't . And neither are you . Don't expect me to be this polite next time if you lead off with snark ...
Do you have anything to say about the content of the article?
If you could read English you would see that I commented about important issues which were NOT addressed in this article . BTW this transparent attempt at spreading propaganda had all the subtlety of a steam roller .
If you declare my on topic comment to be off-topic , unbiased readers will conclude you are abysmally stupid . Enjoy the notoriety !
And chocolate cake!
And salmon fishing!
And you wonder why no one visits you on your blog ... DUH !
Bob brings a special type of disingenuous to NT. If he's not engaged in fact free conspiracy mongering, he's whining about others failing to complement him on his crazy, devoid of all facts conspiracy mongering.
In response to article about the UK involvement in the war, he makes the totally preposterous and unsupported by any facts anywhere claim that HRC knew there were no WMDs in Iraq and decided to sacrifice thousands of American soldiers in her attempt to create a failed political trap for George Bush. In Bob's world, this crazy conspiracy level thinking that would embarrass any non-intoxicated graduate of an elementary school is "on topic" when the discussion is supposedly focused on the United Kingdom's decision to go to war.
Moreover, totally fact free conspiracy mongering is "intelligent conversation" and any attempt to debunk the most crazy ass conspiracy I've had the misfortune to stumble across recently is "garbage." We've seen his act before. Any silliness that is on bob's "side" as he so simply puts it, always fine. Doesn't matter if it's made up or incoherent, Bob loves it if it's on his "side." All dissenting opinions are to be attacked with his arsenal of logical fallacies and emojies while he whines about getting them censored.
If nothing else, Bob brings the crazy, simultaneously untethered to both reality and logic in equal measure. His commitment to his extreme ideology is so out of control that he lacks the basic self awareness of a five year old.
At least you can make laugh me Bob.
Do you have anything to say about the content of the article?
This is cool. Dean, Sean, and Petey have now posted several times each... without ever actually addressing the article. There are several possibilities:
1 They didn't read it.
2 They didn't understand it.
3 They have no effective response to it.
4 They are following a wingnut rule: never let yourself get caught in a fact-based conversation; always avoid the subject.
5 They are compulsively destructive.
Or any combination of these...
Sean,
What part of the timeline did you miss? Maybe this:
March 20, 2003 - (local time) U.S. and coalition forces begin military action against Iraq .
October 2, 2003 - David Kay, who heads the U.S. search, reports to intelligence committees for both the House and Senate that the Iraq Survey Group has found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Kay says he will need six to nine months to conclude his work.
January 28, 2004 - After retiring earlier in the month, David Kay tells the Senate Armed Services Committee that there should be an independent investigation into the flawed intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons capability.
I didn't realize you were such a conspiracy believer. Apparently, the British report and the American reports clearing bush are meaningless. Since you can't argue with those who ignore reality, I'm not going to bother engaging. The actual evidence on the subject is overwhelming and validated by every independent investigation launched by the American and British governments. I'll,let them talk for me.
There's no point in engaging the tin foil faction. They have no interest in reality.
See what I mean? Truther madness.
Whereas you, C, are just a mindless vandal.
I'd like to take this opportunity to belatedly wish a Happy 70th birthday to an honorable man and great American, President Bush 43! While he wasn't our greatest President and I did not agree with all that he did, he did enough that I liked to merit best wishes in his respect for his office retirement and many more years of health and happiness. He was a commander in chief that those serving under him adored.
🇺🇸🎂🎉🎁🇺🇸